queer theory & monsterconcepts

Occupying myself with queer theory rouses quite a few irritating tics in me. I nurse a constant, incessant, deeply felt desire to interrupt the elegant or sometimes not-so-elegant flow of the texts on desire & becoming & power by slyly asking, in the spirit of my newly found mate Alfred Ayer: "but what does that mean, anyway?"

**

"I am asking how it is that a notion like desire, which has been almost exclusively understood in male (and commonly heterocentric) terms, can be transformed so that it is capable of accomodating the very category on whose exclusion it has previously been based." (E. Grosz)

But what is the task at hand here? Before this, Grosz has said nothing about why she focuses her investigation on desire. At this point, I have no idea why it is important for her to work with the concept of "desire". This makes the text hard to follow. (I do have some minimalist grasp of why "desire" was introducted into feminist theory, how the concept became a part of the "sex wars", a revitalization of psychoanalysis, etc., but that historical background does not help much as such) What she does, later on in the text, is to contrast an idea of desire as "lack" (an idea she associates with Freud) with an idea of desire as a productive force, directed at nothing in particular beyond its "own self-expansion" (she has inherited this idea from Spinoza & Deleuze & Guattari). The point of all this is, I take it, to reject the idea of lesbian women as "inverted men", and to make possible a concept of sexuality based on pleasure and "surfaces". This makes me no less exasperated. I am aware of the fact that sexuality has been described along the lines of "insatiable consumption" as well as "outward directed energy", but it is almost as if Grosz thinks that some people's lives will be changed simply because they are given a conceptual alternative. In my opinion, this approach makes us less interested in the specific holding the idea of sexuality as consumption actually has on our thinking (its variatious forms, the alluring form it sometimes takes.).

But abandon hope all ye who enter here. "There is no pure sexuality, no inherently transgressive sexual practices, no sexuality beyond or outside the limits of patriarchal models." And there's one question grinding in my head: at what level is she speaking? Of what consequence is it that we are all trapped within "the patriarchal model"? This question gets all the more acute as she in fact emphasizes that she does not want to describe sexuality as "systems of belief or representations". So, then, what? She wants to talk about energies, moments, excitations. But, interestingly, our relation to other people has a quite marginal residue in her picture of "desire" - in her phrasing, we are bodies who are in contact with other bodies. It is obvious throughout her text to what extent she is haunted by the picture of desire as the consumption of an object. She does everything to escape that (which is understandable), but she ends up, well, with what - ?

**

As a matter of fact, most of the time, I am left with the feeling that I have absolutely zero grasp of the way the concept of, for instance, "desire" is employed. It is not that I am quarelling with a philosophical method in which concepts are given a specific meaning in order to illuminate a specific contrast. If you want to employ the concept of "desire" in a way that does not latch on to some of our "ordinary uses" of that word (whatever is meant by that, anyway), then, fine. But at least I want to be given some substance as to the direction in which the text is moving. I want to be brought along to some place (and not just a clinical, non-place saturated with geographical metaphors).

It's no easy job to pin down what separates an illuminating piece of writing from mere conceptual play. So, all right, if you want to connect the concepts of power and desire and becoming, then you have to tell me something about what exactly it is I will gain a better sight of if I make this connection. I am aware of the fact that this might take time, and that I will often be provided with an answer when I have read the text in its enteriety. But you cannot simply say: these connections help us in the making of queer politics. The concepts do not, as it were, do the job all by themselves. Concepts will not change the world (but perspectives might do it). "Re-thinking the concept of...." - I don't really see the subversive power in that. You have to show me what you want to say, the concept you deploy for whatever purpose you have with your text have to, at some level, latch on to some understanding of mine. The concept you use should help me see what you see. (I almost want to say, "concepts are tools", but that is problematic as well.)

So, I have a severe problem with philosophy ("theory") that is centered on concepts in such a way that substance is lost. In Swedish we say: "gör det bättre själv då för helvete" (this is a polite & modest way of encouraging the critical person to develop some positive and edifying views of her own). In the course I am attending, we were asked to provide our understanding of three concepts. It proved to be a difficult thing to do. And while doing it, I realized how brutish the philosophy I am doing really is. So here's the brute talking, an illustration of why we will not reach very far if we are simply asked to give an account of a concept (and not a problem, a reply to a question, etc.):

Power: “Power” is not a force of nature. The various aspects of power that somehow has a relation to the world of human beings and society are different from falling stones, a violent gush of wind or the movements of the planets. Nor is power an object, at least not in the same sense in which balls and chairs are objects. In talking about the power exercised by a human being or the dimension of power in a situation we are employing a description of what is going on, about our perception of what is going on. For example: “His ability to manipulate enables him to gain power over the situation.” “I felt absolutely powerless in that situation; I don’t know how I ended up in their company. The atmosphere was suffocating.” “I have to put something in either one of the boxes – but I don’t feel like committing myself to either one.” The concept of power is often employed in order to say something about what is “within our power”, what we cannot change, things we want to change. By describing something as “power” (a power relation), we attend to phenomena that we find unfair or wrong. Power is never simply there. This is shown by our reactions. Our reactions to power are dissimilar from the reaction I have when I bump into a closed door, even though power may be experienced just as infuriating, just as impersonal, and as impenetrable, as the closed door. Instead of restricting ourselves to the solitary concept of power, we should sniff around a bit and reflect on what we want to say when we talk about something as an instance of power. I think one of the lessons we may learn from Foucault & his critique of our tendency to think along the lines of “repressive power” is that he challenges us to look at power in the specific situation, when power is, so to speak, a part of the messiness of life (and that’s how I would phrase the idea of “productive power”).

Desire: People do not want things in a general sense. It does not seem to make sense to say (or let’s say I have a hard time thinking of a context where we would say): “I desire.” Think of the following assertions: I lust for the delicious cake in the shop window. I intend to have a look at that Hegel book and I’m feeling quite up to it tonight (I do want to read it, whatever you might think). I desire you. Chloe liked Olive. When you ask me if I want to come along to the movies, I am happy to join you. It is important that these expressions are not quite interchangeable. There is no “force” of human energy that could be characterized as “desire” (no primordial inclination, as it were). At least, I’m not too sure how that force would be characterized (I am still struggling with the desire machine). For that reason, a general concept of “desire” puzzles me.

Heteronormativity: For “the straight mind”, only some things are possible. The “straight mind” tends to have a gender hang-up along the lines of “this is the ladies’ room, isn’t it?” or “that is not very lady-like of you” or “haven’t you ever desired to have children? Really? No, I don’t believe you.” Or: “Our business idea is aimed at a specific consumer group, middle-class families who are in the middle of careers & child rearing”. “The straight mind” is very interested in some things, among them money, and (gendered) sex (and, as Valerie Solanas points out, death). The straight mind operates on many different levels. That’s not as strange as it may sound: it does, because this way of perceiving human beings, society and life is deeply ingrained. The straight mind prides itself on having got things straight, on being “reasonable” and “decent”. The straight mind offers you an answer to all your questions & it is very convincing in its taking on many shapes & forms. The straight mind is about gender and sex. The straight mind turns everything into gender and sex. Gender and sex are its organizing principles. Organizing prinicples are to be done away with.

--- The thing that amazes me the most in some of the texts on queer theory (some of which are actually good and well worth reading, I am only criticising some stuff) is the tendency to get rid of the concrete human beings. "Desire" (desire-machine), "bodies" and "subversiveness". "Desire is a productive force that works as a movement." The problem is not the concept of desire. There is a lot to be said about what it is to desire another human being. It's not that. But in some of the texts I am presently reading, it is as if some fuzzy desiring force is desiring --- (it should not be an object). A voluptious force, streaming through the de- or re- territorialized spheres of reality. What am I? A weepy humanist? Hm.